Appeal No. 2003-0491 Page 3
Application No. 09/584,173
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain any of the examiner’s rejections.
The Smoluk rejections
Claim 1 is directed to a fish-activated hook-setting assembly adapted for use with
unattended fishing poles comprising, inter alia, a pole holding means attachable to the
base and coactive therewith to support a fishing pole therein. Smoluk discloses an ice
fishing apparatus comprising a base 12, an arm 30 extending outwardly from the base
and spool 32, having a supply of fishing line 10 thereon, mounted on the arm 30. The
fishing line 10 is fed through guides on the base 12. Smoluk does not teach a fishing
pole or any structure used for holding a fishing pole. In rejecting claim 1 as being
anticipated by Smoluk, the examiner has taken the position that the base 12, arm 30
and spool 32 define a pole holding means (answer, page 4). Specifically, the examiner
(answer, page 7) states that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007